Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

Narendra Modi. Global Panorama/Flickr. Some rights reserved.The
current great debate in India about being national and anti-national
has been called by an eminent film-maker a “great comedy”. The
situation does seem bizarre. The “anti-nationals” are being asked
to leave the country and go to Pakistan. They in turn say that those
waving the flags of patriotism want to destroy the idea of India.

Concerned
citizens, activists, civil libertarians, constitutional experts, and
protesting university students see an unfolding tragedy in the
violence perpetrated by the “patriotic” mobs. The mobs undermine
the democratic order. They flaunt their commitment to the ruling
party’s ideology and bank on police inaction.

Concerned citizens, activists, civil libertarians, constitutional experts, and protesting university students see an unfolding tragedy in the violence perpetrated by the “patriotic” mobs.

India
is never an easy assignment for foreign correspondents sent to this
land of contradictions with the brief that what is true about this
country, its opposite is also true! This correspondent will find the
current situation weird. He may also start wondering what is
democracy. After all, he was sent to one of the great democracies of
the world!

The
foreign correspondent rushes to the place where it all began. To
Jawaharlal Nehru University, a premier institution of India
recognised globally for its scholarship and the culture of debate and
dissent. Its website carries Nehru’s words: “A university stands
for humanism. For tolerance, for reason, for the adventure of ideas
and for the search of truth.” It is one university in which the
union elections set an example for the country’s politicians. These
are held on the basis of debating skills and without the use of money
or muscle power.

It
is one university in which a student union owing allegiance to the
party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has remained on the fringe
despite vigorous campaigning over the years to wrest control from the
left-leaning organisations.

So
what happened at this university? Some student organisation held a
meeting where capital punishment given to a Pakistan-trained Indian
terrorist was questioned. The crowds that perhaps included outsiders
raised pro-Pakistan and anti-India slogans. A ruling party
functionary lodged a police complaint. The police went in and
arrested the student union president who had expressed no
“anti-national” sentiments at the meeting. He had talked about
freedom from poverty and freedom from the sectarian ideology of the
ruling establishment.

This
student leader was charged with sedition! To justify the police case,
doctored videos were telecast. False rumours were spread about him.
The groups affiliated to the Prime Minister’s party thrashed this
young PhD student while he was being taken to court by the police.

What
followed was the mass hysteria against the “anti-national”
elements. The “nationalists” created a hostile atmosphere against
the JNU students and demonised the university. The students protested
peacefully in defence of the freedom expression and the autonomy of
the universities.

The
foreign correspondent lands in a country that is stricken by a raging
fever of pseudo-nationalism and pop-patriotism. What sense can he
make of the cries of “kill-kill” against the so-called
“anti-national” Indians? He reads about the doctored videos being
telecast to support a false charge of sedition against a student
leader. He finds some ruling party leaders demanding the closure of
the Jawaharlal Nehru University! The correspondent discovers that JNU
has for long been targeted by the BJP and its ideological mentor RSS
for being a hotbed of the leftists. And since it cannot be purified
with a touch of Hindutva, it must be closed down.

The
visiting journalist reads the disturbing statement made by some
British academics on the situation in India. He notes that Prof. Noam
Chomsky, along with Nobel Laureate Orhan Pamuk and 86 other
academicians including Indian teachers in America, has condemned “the
culture of authoritarian menace that the present government in India
has generated”.

In
short, the foreign correspondent finds the nation in a temper and a
disaffected student community. He sees a society seething with hate.
He senses confrontation in the air. “Kill-Kill” is the word he
hears on the streets and in the TV studios. He reads threats of
murder and rape. He studies the editorials calling for the rule of
law and for a professional police force and an objective media.

He
gets about finding answers to several questions. Why is the history
of Nazi Germany being recalled in a spate of newspaper articles and
speeches? Why are the people protesting against the misuse of the
sedition law? Why is the police force letting the political goons
beat up the “anti-national” accused being taken to a court of law
or the journalists cover the court case? Why have some commentators
coined the phrase “goonda nationalism”?

Having
come prepared to cover religious violence, the foreign correspondent
finds that this time the confrontation is not about the desecration
of a Hindu temple or the Holy Koran or about a Hindu girl marrying a
Muslim or some one killing a cow or eating beef. This time it is
about nationalism, an issue with which the enlightened west is only
too familiar.

Nationalism, patriotism

Patriotism in India. Varun Khurana/Flickr. Some rights reserved.Nationalism
has been critically analysed by Indian thinkers who cherished
humanism and alerted against the dangers of nationalism. Rabindranath
Tagore said “patriotism cannot be our final spiritual shelter; my
refuge is humanity”. Tagore wrote that the logic of the Nation will
never heed the voice of truth and goodness. He said the fierce
self-idolatory of nation-worship is not the goal of human history.
The German history as well as Tagore’s views on nationalism is
cited extensively by those criticising the mobs wanting to issue
certificates of patriotism. One commentator said Tagore would have
been called “anti-national” today. Another pointed out that by
these standards, the Apple chief in America would be arrested for
sedition for not cooperating with the FBI! A police officer in Jammu
and Kashmir said that were they to arrest people for shouting
“Freedom for Kashmir” or for raising the Pakistani flag, they
would be filing several cases every week!

The
foreign correspondent finds that some Indians are ready to kill
human-beings in order to protect the lives of cows. He reads about
the mobs asking the citizens to sing the national anthem, salute
Mother India and fly the national flag. Those defying the orders are
asked to go to Pakistan or face punishment at home.

When a society is in a state of frenzy, words acquire different meaning. “Intolerance” became a word of abuse directed against the Prime Minister of India. “Freedom of expression” signifies anti-nationalism.

The
correspondent reads the hundreds of death threats sent through the
cyber space to students and journalists and to the members of their
families. The self-proclaimed nationalists feel empowered with false
courage – a gift of the social media!

Apart
from these cowards hiding behind the giant internet servers, some
brave Indians thrashing “anti-national” individuals do not mind
their faces being shown on the TV. They get garlanded and honoured
publicly for their “courage”. The media-savvy Delhi Police turns
a blind eye because Facebook flaunts a photo of this character with
the country’s home minister.

When
a society is in a state of frenzy, words acquire different meaning.
“Intolerance” became a word of abuse directed against the Prime
Minister of India. “Freedom of expression” signifies
anti-nationalism.

India’s
woman education minister was perhaps inspired by the vigilante groups
who created mayhem on the streets waving the national flags tied to
sticks five to six feet long. Her ministry ordered the Government
universities to fly the national flag!

An
eminent public intellectual welcomed the order but raised a critical
question: “Why 207-feet high?” Since India invented the number
zero, a 200-feet-high flag would deepen the sense of patriotism, he
wrote. The cyber bullies are sure to be angered by his qualified
dissent. The height matters. How dare this ivory-tower man reduce it
by full seven feet!

Earlier,
a couple of writers were killed physically and one “killed” the
writer in himself and abandoned his vocation in response to threats
to his life. Protests by writers, artists and scientists had followed
and they were demonised for talking about “intolerance”. The
pro-Modi political activists took to streets and the TV studios to
pour venom against the writers protesting against intolerance.

The
debate on intolerance had hardly subsided when the current campaign
against the “anti-national” forces was launched. No holds are
barred. Death threats are shouted, student and journalists are
physically attacked and a father is asked to shoot down his
“anti-national” daughter. These threats are printed, aired on the
TV and appear on the social media in the posts by the patriotic
Indians!

The
foreign correspondent observes a hysterical campaign to protect the
honour of Mother India and to denounce the “anti-nationals” who
are asked to leave India along with the beef-eaters. He gets to see
why a sizeable section is crying for a democratic India.

The
recent events in India demonstrate that the State doesn’t have to
directly intervene to suspend civil liberties. In any case, the
Constitution prevents the authority from making any blatant move.
When democracy constrained the US Government from fighting terrorism
in a certain way, some illegal services were outsourced to the
non-state actors. In the current situation, it is not the Government
but the non-state actors who have unleashed a reign of terror.

The
foreign correspondent, trained in old-fashioned journalism, is
surprised to find India’s visual media fanning the flames of
pseudo-nationalism and declaring any one a criminal. Most screaming
anchors imitate a popular Irish-American TV talk show host of
America.

A
rare TV journalist whose channel is not controlled by any one running
other businesses ultimately could not bear it any more. He produces a
programme on the dangers to democracy posed by the so-called free
media that chases popularity ratings by debasing public discourse
through cock-fights in the studio. Ravish Kumar did not spare himself
while alerting the TV viewers that the vigilante groups seen
thrashing the “anti-national” student on false charges could come
to their homes one day! He used darkness on the small screen to
illumine minds. This programme must be seen to understand how the
“free” media can help subvert democracy. Journalism students may
get to know of the havoc the visual media is playing in India.

Of
course, following the ethics of journalism, the foreign correspondent
strikes a balance and says that a glass that is half empty is a glass
half full. He reports that India continues to be a functioning
democracy. The duly elected national government is in place and so is
the Constitution. The highly professional army has never had a rogue
colonel. Elections are conducted regularly. Political rallies are
held peacefully. The opposition leaders give fiery speeches. Courts
function. The press is free. Film censorship is challenged quite
often. And of course, there are no mid-night knocks.

But
a balanced report does not always tell the whole story. At times, a
writer, not a journalist, is better able to tell the truth. What is
happening in India today needs to be explained by V. S. Naipaul in
his luminous prose. He understands mass frenzy and he knows all about
the political leaders of the Third World.

The genie of sectarianism

India's birthday. Varun Khurana/Flickr. Some rights reserved.To
put it simply, it was intolerance yesterday and nationalism today.
The issues come and go. These are revived or abandoned, depending on
the political calculations. The pot has to be kept boiling if the
electorate is to be polarised and vote banks protected or acquired.

The
great battle in India is essentially between the pro-Modi and
anti-Modi forces. The former consist of Modi’s ideological soldiers
plus those who are not the Hindutva votaries. They had flocked to him
during the last parliamentary elections because they were deeply
disappointed by the previous Government.

This
latter group is also concerned about the venom injected into the
society. But many of this non-Hindutva group still believe that the
Prime Minister will one day speak against the unruly elements in his
political family determined to polarise the nation. They believe that
like Lord Shiva, Mr. Modi will swallow the poison to save the
creation. The body-politic will be detoxified and cleansed. India
will stop generating hate and start making aircrafts.

To put it simply, it was intolerance yesterday and nationalism today. The issues come and go.

More
and more people are coming to the conclusion that this is unlikely to
happen. They say the genie of sectarianism cannot to be pushed back
into the bottle easily. In the current atmosphere, these nay-sayers
have to take care and protect themselves.

These
days TV’s political reportage ends with a thematically appropriate
Bollywood song. So this piece concludes with: yeh
kahaan aa gaye hum?
Oh where, oh where have we come? — a thought that is troubling the
concerned Indians.